lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:32:14 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        "Michael Kelley (EOSG)" <Michael.H.Kelley@...rosoft.com>,
        Mohammed Gamal <mmorsy@...hat.com>,
        Cathy Avery <cavery@...hat.com>, Bandan Das <bsd@...hat.com>,
        Roman Kagan <rkagan@...tuozzo.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...uxdriverproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/7] KVM: nVMX: enlightened VMCS initial
 implementation

On 21/12/2017 13:50, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> I'm back with (somewhat frustrating) results (E5-2603):

v4 (that would be Broadwell)?

> 1) Windows on Hyper-V (no nesting): 1350 cycles
> 
> 2) Windows on Hyper-V on Hyper-V: 8600
> 
> 3) Windows on KVM (no nesting): 1150  cycles
> 
> 4) Windows on Hyper-V on KVM (no enlightened VMCS): 18200
> 
> 5) Windows on Hyper-V on KVM (enlightened VMCS): 17100

What version were you using for KVM?  There are quite a few nested virt
optimizations in kvm/queue (which may make enlightened VMCS both more or
less efficient).

In particular, with latest kvm/queue you could try tracing vmread and
vmwrite vmexits, and see if you get any.  If you do, that might be an
easy few hundred cycles savings.

Paolo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists